Talk:Irish general election, 1918

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Note One[edit]

What is the source for this claim about the placing of a gun to an electoral officers head and the discovery of new ballots? Also, where did it happen?--John Carroll 11:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins p.67. It was in the Longford by-election in 1917. In the words of the perpetuator, Alasdair MacCaba, "I jumped up on the platform, put a .45 to the head of the returning officer, clicked the hammer and told him to think again." FearÉIREANNFlag of Ireland.svg\(talk) 20:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

mandate for war?[edit]

Sinn Féin treated the result as a mandate from the Irish people to immediately set about establishing an independent, all-Ireland state, and to initiate an undeclared war of separation from Great Britain.

This isn't really true, is it? My understanding was that the media and the government incorrectly blamed SF for the militancy? Is the article being too simplistic in believing that SF and 'physical force republicanism' were one and the same? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Elections in Independent Ireland category[edit]

Please stop adding Elections in Independent Ireland category to this page and to Irish general election 1921 page. Yes, Irish independence was proclaimed in 1916 and was declared by the 1st Dáil in January 1919 but that does not make it a reality. The Irish Republic states it existed from 1919 to 1922. The 1918 election was a UK one, run by the British government, how is this an election in an Independent Ireland? If a county is independent then it can run its own elections as the Free State government did in 1922. Also what about the people in Ireland who didn't recognise the Irish Republic and thought they were continuing to live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Another thing, the Irish War of Independence started in January 1919 (and ended in 1921), so how could an election in December 1918 be held in an Independent Ireland?

But rather than get into a revert war and discussions on when Ireland became independent, I think the categories should be re-organised.

The current structure is:

Elections by country 
  [+] Elections in Ireland 
  [+] Elections in the Republic of Ireland 
      [+] Elections in independent Ireland 

A better arrangement would be:

Elections by country 
  [+] Elections in Ireland (all elections up to and including 1921)
      [+] Elections in independent Ireland (all elections from 1922 to 1948)
      [+] Elections in the Republic of Ireland (all elections from 1949)

It's not perfect, but the 1918 and 1921 elections would then reside in the Elections in Ireland only, conveniently, side stepping any potential POV issues like actual date of Independence. There are other issues like presidential elections, the first 2 are in independent Ireland, the rest in RoI category, not exactly ideal, they should surely be in the same category. The difficulty is in trying to come up with categories for the following periods of history:

  • British rule, until 1916/1919/1922 (take your pick!)
  • Irish Republic, 1919-1922
  • Irish Free State, 1922-1937
  • Ireland/Éire, 1937-1948
  • Republic of Ireland, 1949-

All suggestions welcome! Snappy56 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we using British electorial history or are we using Irish Electoral History, Independence was declared in 1916, reconfirmed by the First Dáil Éireann after the 1918 General election, trying looking at the Dail database.--padraig 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about reality based electoral history! IMHO, Irish independence was a process, starting with the Easter Rising and ending in the Anglo-Irish treaty. Ireland didn't magically become independent as soon as P.H. Pearse read the proclamation or happen when the 1st Dáil declared unilateral independence, these were steps on the way.

This text is from Irish Republic:

The goal of those who established the Irish Republic was to create a de facto independent republic comprising the whole island of Ireland. They failed in this goal, but the Irish Republic paved the way for the creation of the Irish Free State, a Commonwealth dominion with self-government, and a territory that extended to the 26 counties originally foreseen in the 1914 Home Rule Act. By 1949 the Free State became a fully independent republic, the 'Republic of Ireland'.

Speaking in the Dáil on 29 April 1997, Bertie Ahern, the leader of the Fianna Fáil party, which is the successor of the anti-treaty Sinn Féin, and the then Taoiseach (head of government) John Bruton, leader of the Fine Gael party, which is the successor of the pro-Treaty Sinn Féin, agreed that as a basis for inclusive commemoration, the date from which Irish independence should be measured was not the formation of the Irish Republic in 1919, but the 1922 establishment of the Irish Free State, the first modern Irish state to achieve de facto and de jure independence, and therefore international recognition.

This is the position of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and presumably the other Dáil parties which makes it a majority position, so although you have a different opinion, you should respect the majority one. Btw, Do you have any suggestions for category changes? Snappy56 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "Elections in Ireland" template, categories and similar items should include Northern Ireland elections (and UK & EU elections in Northern Ireland). Then we could, without distortion, have a smoother series starting with or before Grattan's Parliament, continuing with elections in Ireland under the Union of 1801-1922, and covering all the elections on the island of Ireland without having to make judgements about the legitimacy, coverage or jurisdiction of the individual bodies or referendum decisions they produced. See for comparison the templates for constituencies in individual Irish (including Northern Irish) counties and for elections from Irish universities. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

This article is currently titled Irish (UK) general election, 1918. I can see a reason for the parenthesised "UK", since the election was organised as an election to the UK Parliament, but it's superfluous because there was no other general election in Ireland that year.

So I propose that the article should be moved to Irish general election, 1918, which is currently a redirect to Irish (UK) general election, 1918. Any objections? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support that move as the 1918 election was the first election to Dáil Éireann.--padraig 11:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

O Fenian writes 'Unsourced claims and analysis' and reverts wholesale without even checking whether every change falls within these categories. Anyway the entire article is unsourced and full of analysis bar five small referenced items. So leave it be O Fenian. Only remove what you believe is either wrong or contentious. 81.129.245.63 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No thank you, as disruptive trolls do not get to dictate that policies to not apply to their edits. O Fenian (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian - Could you write coherent English rather than screech. I have no idea what you are saying except I hear what you are about. No assessment of the changes involved just abuse in the hope that your patrolling and reversions will win out. 81.153.148.246 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

During your lengthy time as a disruptive troll, you have received countless warnings about unsourced content. I suggest you take heed of them .O Fenian (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian - only threats and abuse, never proper assessment of the additions I make.

Nitpicking and fault finding is your stock in trade. Hopefully Wikipedia is bigger than you. You revert even spelling corrections in your rush to justice. 81.153.148.246 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your current additions are original research. I have also checked Laffan, and your edits are unacceptable. Please provide quotes and page numbers to substantiate any changes you wish to make prior to making them. O Fenian (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"It should be borne in mind that there was a limited electoral pact between SF and Nationalists; the Nationalists gave SF a clear run in Tyrone North-West and instructed their supporters to vote SF in Fermanagh South and Londonderry City; meanwhile SF instructed their supporters to vote Nationalist in Armagh South, Down South, Tyrone North-East and Donegal East. The pact broke down in Down East where a Unionist won by splitting the difference. For the six counties which formed the future Northern Ireland, the total vote was:" ACTUAL VOTES FOLLOW - http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.236.11 (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not source the changes you have made, and it is not from Laffan. You allege Laffan supports the changes you made, either provide quotes from Laffan or it will be assumed you are falsifying sources and further action taking accordingly. O Fenian (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please remove the original research added in this edit.

That the Catholic electorate in Ulster was by no means overwhelmingly separatist is revealed by comparing neighbouring results. In East Donegal the IPP got 7,596 votes (the Unionist 4,797) while Sinn Fein received 46, yet in South Donegal with no Unionist, it was 5,787 votes for Sinn Fein to 4,752 for the IPP. In Tyrone North-East it was 56 for Sinn Fein against 11,605 for the IPP and 6,681 for the Unionist, but in adjacent Tyrone North-West where no IPP candidate ran, Sinn Fein polled 10,442 against the Unionist's 7,696 votes.

Here (top result, page 165, having trouble linking to it direct) is the relevant passage (certainly regarding Donegal, I can find no results for either "North West Tyrone" or "Tyrone North West") from the book they claim in their edit summary sources their addition. As you can see, the source does not make the analytical claims that the editor says it does? This edit has been warned many times about their edits, which include their many problematic edits to this article. This addition is OR, and should not remain in due to a grudge bearing admin who has an axe to grind after his very bad block of me was overturned. O Fenian (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the changes O Fenian before you start lashing out. The article has moved on with the specific Ulster results detail now referenced not by Laffan but by arc.86.150.37.92 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you'd help matters by signing up for an account (WP:SIGNUP)? Free, takes seconds, makes it easier to hold conversations. Rd232 talk 11:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read them, and ARC (sic). ARK does not source the claims you have added and neither does Laffan. You are making analytical claims about election results supported only by the results, despite being warned dozens of times about your edits. O Fenian (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
ARK does source those election figures. Use find in page for the vote totals, omitting the comma (7,596 = 7596). [1] However this may well be original research by WP:SYNTHESIS - that source doesn't say "the Catholic electorate was not simply voting for separation". PS Protection is applied to the wrong version so don't get upset about that. Rd232 talk 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I said "ARK does not source the claims you have added", not the "figures". The key is that the whole paragraph is original research flowing from the first sentence, "That the Catholic electorate in Ulster was by no means overwhelmingly separatist is revealed by comparing neighbouring results", how is that not conclusions being drawn based on votes alone? If you only remove the first sentence the paragraph makes no sense, you are left with isolated cherry picked consituency results that have no context. O Fenian (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
In fact the addition is contradicted by ARK!! "It should be borne in mind that there was a limited electoral pact between SF and Nationalists; the Nationalists gave SF a clear run in Tyrone North-West and instructed their supporters to vote SF in Fermanagh South and Londonderry City; meanwhile SF instructed their supporters to vote Nationalist in Armagh South, Down South, Tyrone North-East and Donegal East." The conclusion is being drawn based on results in East Donegal and Tyrone North East that as the IPP received more votes than SF that the Catholic population was not "overwhelmingly separatist", yet these are constituencies where SF instructed their supporters to vote Nationalist (which is the IPP)! O Fenian (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that seems conclusive. Rd232 talk 11:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Requested edit is clearly disputed. Please discuss here and come to a decision on what should and what should not be included in the article. So, protected edit request not done at this time. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just received confirmation from an admin that the proposed removal is contradicted by the sources, and is probably original research. What more am I supposed to do? Will this incorrect passage remain while the IP editor argues black is white? O Fenian (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The article was protected in the first place because of these disputes. Removing/adding any information related to that dispute without a proper discussion taking place here is a continuation of the edit war. You can make another request if you want of course, but I will not be doing this. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Disputes that have been discussed since protection, sources have been linked to and quoted, and it has been shown that the sources actually contradict the conclusion that the article is making. O Fenian (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The person who added the text should get a chance to respond, eg to provide other sources. WP:DEADLINE. If there is no response in a couple of days, the protection can be lifted. Rd232 talk 12:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Allow the editor more time to find sources, you must be joking surely? Did they add sources the second time they added this information? The third? The fourth? Then finally on the fifth attempt do we get a claim that it is sourced by Laffan, funny how this was never mentioned before isn't it? This attempt was removed on the grounds it is not sourced by Laffan, so then we get a sixth time. And a seventh, repeating the claim that it is sourced, presumably by Laffan still. And of course there is the eighth time it was added. After being repeatedly challenged to provide quotes from Laffan to support the additions (challenges which were ignored) and links to Laffan being provided that tend to show the claims are unsupported, then we get the claim that it is not sourced by Laffan at all (despite saying it was earlier) and that it is sourced by ARK. This is despite ARK contradicting the conclusion being drawn based on election results! The time to provide sources is when your edit is reverted the first time. O Fenian (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair points. Do you have a response to that, anonymous editor? Rd232 talk 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian that sounds all too simple. It sounds very much like common sense to me. But hey it's a pov warrior out to cause disruption therefore discussions must be had and allowances made. So the IP should be given the opportunity to provide other sources, since the sources they used already actually contradict the conclusion the point they are making. Let’s see them do it again! I have never heard so much nonsense! We remove/revert WP:OR not reward it. We don't disrupt the project by locking articles. --Domer48'fenian' 17:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I really think you need to calm down O Fenian. The Ulster results edit is quite tame with one non-statistical (not contradictory) point made gently yet the whole article has about 50 unreferenced analytic opinions. Get reverting that meaty fare before hysterically removing items that you have not even read that do not entirely serve your purpose. 86.150.37.92 (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One problem at a time. The edit you wish to add appears to be original research (OR) via synthesis. If you're not willing to defend it on its merits, it will be removed. As for the other possible OR issues (50?), take them one at a time in a new section. Also, please refrain from using words like "hysterically" to describe other editors' actions. It's not helpful. See WP:BATTLEGROUND. Rd232 talk 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the same disruption that has been going on for months, and I hope people are paying attention. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If I felt the other 50 unreferenced items were wrong or needed amendment I would try to improve them. I wouldn't revert them wholesale like our patrolling chums.

If the one sentence remark that not all Ulster Catholics voted for separatism in 1918 is so horrifyingly non-neutral I will remove it. The statistical details drawn from Ark effectively reveal that point, amongst others. 86.150.37.92 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(a) If you're fine with the unreferenced items (other than being unreferenced) then mentioning them is a distraction. The other editors disagreed with your addition on wider grounds. (b) Your second paragraph reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, which is not WP:NPOV but accuracy and sourcing. This is quite clear from the discussion above, which you have not responded to there but only here, and ignoring what was said there. This is not debate, it is treating Wikipedia as a WP:Battleground and conceding defeat in this particular "battle". That is not good enough.
Accordingly, based on this and past behaviour, I'm placing you under an editing restriction. You are hereby limited to WP:1RR, that is, if someone reverts your change, you may not revert it; and if you revert someone else's change and they re-do it, you may not revert again. Breaches of this restriction should be reported at User talk:Rd232 or to any other administrator and will result in escalating blocks (which if they are circumvented will lead to further measures). The restriction is of indefinite duration, but that does not mean permanent - good behaviour may enable it to be lifted. (Given the communication difficulties caused by your dynamic IP, showing the minimal good will involved in getting a user account would help.)
Additionally, I strongly encourage you to (a) get a user account (WP:Signup); and (b) propose non-trivial changes on the talk page first, especially if you're introducing new material; and (c) make better use of dispute resolution if the debate gets stuck. Rd232 talk 09:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
For enforcement purposes: the editing restriction is aimed at the user using this IP on 26 August 2009, regardless of which IP is used. It does not apply to anyone else using that IP, or to anyone else who happens to use the same IPs. If in doubt as to identity, exercise caution. Rd232 talk 10:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the matter appears to be settled I'm going to lift the page protection. Rd232 talk 09:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

I see the misleading editing has continued in this edit. It was explained above that ARK attribute specific reasoning as to the variance in Sinn Féin votes in certain constituencies. To leave this out and just mention the number of votes is thoroughly misleading. I have made several changes, they are as follows;

  • The phrase "but a triumph none the less as they held 23 seats out of Ulster's 37, having a minority previously" has been removed and the previous wording restored. That really needs no explanation I hope?
  • I have removed the isolated statistics about South Down and South Armagh. The explanation as my first point applies, plus I note the inappropriate sarcastic wording of "amassed only 79 votes".
  • Similarly the other statistics section has been removed, reasoning as previously mentioned.

If statistics are to be included in this article, which I think would be helpful, I think they should be for all constituencies not ones cherry picked to push a particular point of view. Therefore I think full results could be included in a table, complete with a notes column to detail any "pacts" that affected votes? O Fenian (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me O Fenian you have reverted everything I wrote not just the several, small number of changes that you mention above. Perhaps you could clarify?
My reason for including the electoral statistics for Ulster, my area of interest and expertise, is to provide information on that aspect to inform readers. View pushing, something you would know about, is secondary to the facts. Readers haven't the time or inclination to read through 105 election results. Wikipedia's role is surely to offer pointers on the most significant.
You say that my particular statement about Unionist victories has to go - "but a triumph none the less as they held 23 seats out of Ulster's 37, having a minority previously". "No explanation" needed, you added, "I hope".
Well you are wrong. The explanation is that that was a statement distilled from Laffan's book. On page 165 he writes, "Sinn Fein was not the only victor in 1918; the Unionists also triumphed, increasing the number of their seats by eight. For nearly six years they had represented only a minority of the Ulster constituencies but now...they held 23 out of the provincial total of 37". Please substitute this referenced sentence for my reverted distillation, if it is preferable.
The Arc reasoning can of course go in but it needs the back-up of certain constituency statistics to either prove the point or, god forbid, illustrate a greater complexity about the Ulster results in nationalist seats. The Joe Devlin result in Falls is so noteworthy it needs mention, as Laffan indeed provides, on p. 165 again, writing, "in other respects the pattern in Ulster differed from that in the south. In many parts of the province the Parliamnetary Party polled remarkably well, and in some cases it performed even better than its Sinn Fein challenger...In Falls, Devlin secured 72% of the vote in a straight fight with de Valera." Perhaps you could add this referenced statement too as if I revert your reversion I will be punished, as you know so well.--81.158.160.101 (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A new IP but nothing else. --Domer48'fenian' 07:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Domer, is there a reason you're not engaging in discussion? The Laffan quote, for instance, backs up the Unionist seats bit which was removed, and it seems significant enough and well-sourced enough to warrant inclusion. I'll point out that the 1RR restriction on the IP is intended to force him to debate properly. That's not going to work if people ignore or dismiss him. Persistent lack of engagement with reasonable talk contributions would make the 1RR nonfunctional (it's a solution, not a punishment), and I'd have to lift it. Rd232 talk 10:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The addition of "triumph" in one place only demonstrates what a biased edit it was. As you so correctly point out, the source says "the Unionists also triumphed" (emphasis added). So, given that you did not also state the election was a triumph for Sinn Féin, one could easily draw the conclusion that you are attempting to slant this article in a particular way? In addition triumph is a point of view term, that is frequently applied to elections such as Sinn Féin in the European elections, the BNP in the local elections (two seats is a "triumph"?!) and countless more. So the facts should just be stated, how many seats they had before, and how many they won. Then let the reader make their own mind up as to whether any triumph occurred or not.
Your reason for including the results you did can only be described as POV pushing. The lowest vote totals possible for Sinn Féin were picked, and you left out the reasoning as to why those totals were so low. The reader then inevitably draws the conclusion that Sinn Féin lacked support, when that is simply not true. O Fenian (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Not so O Fenian. The tiny number of votes for SF in certain seats simply illustrates the effectiveness of the Cardinal Logue deal/pact which I was trying to explain and expand on. It also proves my point that without the Ulster constituency details the results quoted in the article are effectively meaningless. As to Domer's concern at repetition of Laffan's word 'triumph' to describe (also) the Unionist result, this is surely acceptable given the existing descriptions in the article of the Sinn Fein result as "as a landslide victory" and one "catastrophic" for the IPP, neither of which, of course, you saw fit to mention or amend. I think the relevant six or eight Ulster contest results should be provided in greater detail.81.158.160.205 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Landslide is a term used to refer to elections that has a generally accepted meaning, "triumph" is without a generally accepted meaning. O Fenian (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That's nonsense. You can have a big or a small landslide; it could be in seats or votes whereas triumph would suggest you did well overall and better than before which is the way Laffan uses it. If I quoted the relevant sentences from Laffan would that satisfy you or would you charge me with copyright violation? 81.158.227.151 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim2718281 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I corrected the total number of votes from 615,515 to 1,015,515 ... Tim Tim2718281 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

This article should be merged with the United Kingdom general election, 1918 article. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought it through? There is no possible way this article should be merged with that one. O Fenian (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This is before 1922, the entire Ireland sent MPs to the UK Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
So what? Try reading the article you are suggesting merging to. O Fenian (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
At least we can link the articles. Though I still think they should be merged. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Link the articles? And you are honestly suggesting merging a 32K article into a 19K article, considering a large part of the latter is tables? That would cause the main article to be grossly unbalanced and needing to be split, which would lead us right back to having two articles. O Fenian (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It already has 'links' to the related article-in-question. Therefore, it's alright. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (24 May)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the article as suggested. There may be more support for 1918 general election in Ireland, but in this case, I'd like to see a focused discussion on the merits of that title before moving the page. - GTBacchus(talk) 14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)



Irish general election, 1918United Kingdom general election, 1918 (Ireland) — This is the format commonly used when there is a significant part of an election which takes place in a geographical area which may be considered seperate (note: European Parliament election, 2009 and European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom). Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is already a United Kingdom general election, 1918. This article is specifically about the election as it affected Ireland. Using the parenthesis form is not intended to improve Wikipedia or to make it make it more accessible – it does the opposite in both cases. It seems to me that the motivation for the RtM is POv pushing. --Red King (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, when cleaning up List of Irish constituencies I already found that most links to the election of 1918 were redirected from the "Dáil Éireann constituency" to the "UK Parliament constituency". That the result of the election was not only used for the UK House of Commons but also for the "Dáil Éireann", does not mean that it was an Irish election. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasoning of Red King above, this article is about Ireland and anyone wanting to find out about it will search for it using Irish General election. Mo ainm~Talk 21:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasoning of Red King above and Mo ainm. --Domer48'fenian' 08:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment simply per the reasoning of someone else is an arguement that should be avoided according to one Wiki policy whichever one it was.
  • Support Name of article implies there was a seperate independant Irish general election despite the fact it was part of the UK and that it was a UK general election. If this article is to focus on the election in regards to Ireland then the proposed new title is more along the lines of something more relevant. Mabuska (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose because that election had a clearly distinct historical importance on the island of Ireland, and a different historical importance to the rest of the United Kingdom.Red Hurley (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per Red King (talk · contribs) above and discussions comments below. It would create an imbalanced UK led article. Fmph (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Given its important in Irish history, it should remain at its current title. The Sinn Fein election manifesto in 1918 stated their intention to withdraw representation from Westminster and setup an Irish Parliament, a fact known to voters beforehand. Snappy (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but UK General Election, 1918 in Ireland might be a better target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral since neither title seems to have it right. It should be something like 1918 general election in Ireland.--Kotniski (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I notice this still hasn't been settled - does anyone have anything against 1918 general election in Ireland as a satisfactory compromise (it doesn't imply there was a separate Irish election, nor does it focus needlessly on the UK)?--Kotniski (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing any consensus for change at all. Therefore it is a bit early to be suggesting a compromise.--Domer48'fenian' 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, the present title is surely unsatisfactory, right? We can all see the valid objections to it? The opposition to the original proposal seems based only on the fact that the proposed title is also bad (for other reasons). --Kotniski (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I know this is a highly contencious issue and I know that the issue has been debated before, however, I do not think the debate was very comprehensive and many of the arguments made were not considered very objectivly or with any greater knowledge of British/Irish politics.
In the previous discussion there were claims that this election was the first to the Dáil Éireann this is false. Rather it was part of the election to the United Kingdom House of Commons in the United Kingdom general election, 1918. Members who were elected in to the UK parliament who refused to take their seats (mainly members of Sinn Féin) formed the First Dáil a body which is not recognised as being a legal body. The members elected in the election this article is about took place on 14 December 1918, from this moment all these members were legally MPs of the UK Parliament. The First Dáil was formed as the same day as the Irish War of Independence broke out on 21 January 1919 evidence of the fact this was actually part of the UK general election. In a similar way to the 1st Parliament of Great Britain no elections took place to decide the membership were held rather it was decided those already elected the the last English and Scottish Parliaments should take those seats.
This part of the election however is certainly distinct and it is clear that the events which it caused in Ireland justify a seperate article however not in the form of being an Irish general election, unless of course the original Irish republicans were prepared to only hold elections when the British said it was okay. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The election took place within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, thus the reason for changing the article title. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As stated in my oppose above, there is already a United Kingdom general election, 1918. This article is about election in Ireland in particular and its consequences. Careful consideration should be given before using disambig forms, since they are less accessible to visitors. In this case, it doesn't even help editors either. It is difficult to see any disinterested motivation for the RtM. --Red King (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes there already is a UK general election, 1918 article, so either merge this article into it as there was no seperate Irish general election, or give it a disambig name thats more relevant and accurate rather than the misleading "Irish general election, 1918" title. Mabuska (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Explain what is misleading about the title? Someone wishing to find out about a key moment in Irish history will not search under UK general election. Mo ainm~Talk 14:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Its pretty obvious just by looking at it. "Irish general election, 1918" is very ambiguous especially when it never happened as a seperate election from that of the UK. It is misleading in that regards. Mabuska (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is much more encyclopaedic to have separate articles with all the links joining them. The alternative would be second best and third-rate—the United Kingdom general election, 1918 article with an overly large Irish section that would be completely disproportionate to the 1918 populations of GB and Ireland. Everyone would then argue that the Irish section was disproportionately way too big, and wonder why there wasn't a separate "Irish general election, 1918" article. Plus there was fallout that applied only to Ireland (North and South), in that we (Irish) were given the PR Single transferable vote in 1919 because of the result, but GB kept the first past the post system (see my Irish local elections, 1920 article). Best to leave them as they are.Red Hurley (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

THe current title implies this was an election 'belonging' (and I use the term belonging loosely here) to Ireland. Rather this was an election in Ireland belonging to the United Kingdom. Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, legally speaking, but we refer to it as the 1918 Irish general election, as it was a political watershed. In the rest of the UK the focus was on the "land fit for heroes" or on the WWI armistice. Some could argue that it was used or misused for propaganda purposes in Ireland. If it were renamed "United Kingdom general election, 1918 (Ireland)" we in Ireland would probably rename it in links as "Irish general election, 1918", using |. If renamed, would you - Shatter Resistance - undertake to carefully and painstakingly rejig the hundreds of existing links to "Irish general election, 1918"?Red Hurley (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we just make "Irish general election, 1918" a redirect page (which would happen if this is moved anyways). That way any existing links will automatically take it to the more accurate title. Mabuska (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Perfect; just like Irish Boundary Commission. The way an English Epergne is a "surtout" in France.Red Hurley (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The general election in Ireland in 1918 is an absolutely critical foundation to the understanding the history of Ireland (island) in the past 100 years. To hide it away under a UK disambiguator is beyond pedantic and obscurantist, it is outright obstructive. Please think of how Wikipedia is used, what are the entry points. --Red King (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a General election in Ireland it was a General election in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and this article covers the bit of the election which happened geographically on the island of Ireland. The reason why this article is seperate in any way from the United Kingdom general election, 1918 article is that the political conseqences here were very different from those in Great Britain and the elections were also used for other matters. By the way what do you mean by "what are the entry points"? Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
How do people enter Wikipedia, what are the likely search terms. --Red King (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 27 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


Irish general election, 19181918 general election in Ireland – As noted in the discussion above. The current title is unsupportable, as this was not a separate election; my proposal avoids this problem without placing unnecessary emphasis on the United Kingdom. Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

The current title is not unsupportable, as noted in the discussion above. --Domer48'fenian' 13:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal: General election in Ireland, 1918. Would not this alternative be better? It is common practice to place the date at the end of the article title. Shatter Resistance (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose, though what we are dealing with here is the "1918 general election" or "general election of 1918", (insofar as it took place) in Ireland; so I would slightly prefer not to put the year right at the end, separated from the words "general election". But your suggestion is still an improvement over the current title.--Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What is meant by the title is explained clearly in the first sentence of the article. Therefore the title is fine and there is no need for a move to anywhere. Scolaire (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
By that logic, any title would be fine. But this title is obviously not fine, since it misleads as to the facts.--Kotniski (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Bizarre comment! Any title would not be fine. The current one is, per the reasoning in the previous move discussion. Scolaire (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Title is clear and concise and is not misleads as to the facts.--Domer48'fenian' 19:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments a few weeks ago. Mo ainm~Talk 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Even looking at the above discussion, I'm not seeing any justification for using the present title, just dissatisfaction with the idea of including "United Kingdom" in the title, which I agree is unnecessary. The fact is that this is not the article about an "Irish general election", just the Irish part of a general election, so I don't see how anyone can reasonably want to keep the present title.--Kotniski (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Whether you can see or not, reasonable people want to keep the present title. Each of us has stated our reasons; if you can't understand them it's not our problem. I count seven times now that you have said the same thing, as though by endless repetition you could convince people of the truth of your argument. You won't. You need to step back and allow others to have their say. Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd be delighted if others would have their say; but all they seem to be saying is "I like the present title" without responding to the very serious objection to it that I presume we can all see. Can you finally tell us what is the justification for a serious encyclopedia's referring as an "Irish general election" to something that was not a general election, but only part of one? If some actual arguments were advanced, I might be persuaded.--Kotniski (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
But the purpose of an RM is not to persuade you, Kotniski. The purpose of an RM is to seek consensus for a move. As of now that consensus seems to be wanting. Neither you nor anybody else has the authority to move an article simply because you aren't persuaded by the arguments against, or to demand that a !vote or a response includes the answers to specific questions. Scolaire (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll take it from that response that you have no arguments. I conclude there is probably some PoV motivation behind keeping the inaccurate title. I know from experience that we encyclopedia-building geeks can never win against the forces of nationalist fervour, so I hereby give up.--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought you would conclude that, since it is always the knee-jerk reaction of "encyclopedia-building geeks" who have there own PoV disputed. Now, if you were to post on my talk page in a friendly way, and ask me as a personal favour to help you understand the logic of the article title, I might do so. My objection is only to being told, by a geek or any other person, that my contribution to a discussion is unacceptable and I must do better. Scolaire (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Providing the arguments that support your position is considered an optional favour? This really is a bizarre new idea.--Kotniski (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Declining to respond to strident demands from one individual. Not exactly novel. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm not going to respond any more. The closing admin ought to ignore all these devoid-of-argument "opposes", but I suspect they won't, so once again, you win. --Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it as a "win". It is only you who have talked in such combative terms. Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Just thought that I would put a word in edgeways here. There is no consensus for the current title at all, that much was established in the previous discussion. What that discussion however did glean was that the change I was making was not considered by many users to be an improvement and therefore to them it was worthless to change from one bad title to another. The closing admin of the last discussion actually called for a new discussion on finding an alternative name which had both consensus and was accurate, to claim otherwise is a falsehood and a perversion of the facts. Shatter Resistance (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The is no consensus to change the title and that was established in the previous request. That is all that was established. --Domer48'fenian' 14:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
And so far there is no consensus to change the title in this request either. Domer, Mo Ainm and myself joined the new discussion in good faith. Shatter Resistance did not, until now. To talk of "a falsehood and a perversion of the facts" is uncivil. It should be withdrawn. Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually I have participated in this discussion, look near the top. And there was a request by closing admin in the clising comments that they saw a considerable support for the current proposal but would like to see a full discussion to establish whether it achieved enough support for consensus. To deny that is a faslehood and I won't deny it or withdraw my previous statement, if you want I will even directly quote the closing admin to prove it. Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. I have struck it. However, since you obviously knew it was a mistake (or you wouldn't have directed me to look near the top), calling it a "falsehood" is a second personal attack. You needn't directly quote the closing admin. He said that there may be more support for "1918 general election in Ireland", but he would like to see a focused discussion on the merits of that title before moving the page. I won't accuse you of falsehood or perversion, but I think that you may have misread his summary as saying that there was "considerable" support or that the current title had no consensus. I think you ought to withdraw your personal attacks now rather than dig a deeper hole for yourself. Scolaire (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support:Why don't we finesse (sidestep, fudge or blur) the issue, in the best British and Irish traditions (of which Lloyd George and de Valera were particularly adept practitioners) by calling this "The 1918 General Election in Ireland". We don't say who called it or who "owned" it, nor are we implying that it was somehow stand-alone or separate from the UK General Election of 1918, but we are specifying the election of 1918 and a particular place. There's an ambiguity here, but that's inherent in the event and in partisan interpretations of the event. The Alternative Proposal below, despite its intent, actually carries nearly the same implication of a separate or stand-alone election as does the current "Irish general election, 1918". —— Shakescene (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Question: How can you say "support" and at the same time say you want it moved to a different title? We need to support or oppose the title as proposed, or else open a new RM, "Move to x". Scolaire (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • A RM discussion doesn't have to move to the originally-proposed title, if consensus forms for a different title.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Understood, but the previous RM was closed two weeks ago with the comment that there might be a consensus for this current proposal. That being so, I feel we ought to vote for or against this current proposal to avoid the poll being repeatedly re-opened on the basis that a tweaked proposal might get a consensus. Scolaire (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This is not an article about an Irish general election, this is an article about the portion of the UK general election held in Ireland. I'd also support any reasonable variation of the proposed title thereof. Toa Nidhiki05 13:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - The current title is accurate. Snappy (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I can see no good reason to move. And to say that the current title is unsupportable is laughable. Its a CuprinolRonseal title - it does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a historic moment in the formation of an Irish state. Lets not forget that at it's formation, the Irish Free State was an all-Ireland body. The North then opted-out. Fmph (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing wrong with the current title. Bjmullan (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Prefer "in Ireland" to "Irish", as it was part of the UK General Election.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The current title seems (to my untutored eye) incorrect. For someone like me who has but a vague idea about Irish history, the current title implies that Ireland was independent in 1918 which turns out to be false when reading the article itself. I read the reasoning below (Scolaire) about the various Dail's and think that there are several problems with it: consistency is not an issue since this Dail is different from all the subsequent ones in Ireland. Elections may or may not be valuable but they are 'called' by an entity and the entity in this case was clearly not Ireland. The word analysis does not take into account the connotations of the words as popularly understood. Irish General Elections implies elections the country of Ireland as it exists today whereas 'in Ireland' is more accurate since it refers solely to where the elections took place. While the proposed title is less than perfect (shouldn't UK be there in it), it seems a perfect compromise given the politics of the discussion on this page. --rgpk (comment) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion - second RM[edit]

Okay, so the demands for opposers to re-state their opposition in terms acceptable to the proposer seem to have ceased, so I will now of my own free will give a comprehensive reason for keeping the article at its present title:

  1. The present title is not misleading, and could not be misleading. If a reader clicked on "Irish teapot" and got this article they would justifiably feel misled, but a reader clicking on "Irish general election, 1918" could not then say, "oh, but I wanted to know about the 1918 election called by the Irish government", because there was no such election. To my mind two kinds of people will click this: (1) those who know what the election was and want to learn more, and they will get what they're looking for; (2) those who do not know what is was, but are curious, and they will have their curiosity satisfied by the opening sentence of the article. To say that the current title is "unsupportable" is therefore unsupportable, on these grounds at least.
  2. The other objection raised seems to be based on "ownership" of the election. But ownership of an election is an absurdity. An election is not a valuable commodity. Besides, why should there be a requirement that an article title makes clear the "ownership" of something? Should Encyclopaedia Brittanica be renamed "Encyclopaedia named 'Brittanica'" because the present title implies British "ownership" of an American publication?
  3. Does the proposed new title contain information missing from the present title? No. They both contain the word "general", they both contain the word "election", they both contain the year "1918", one contains "Irish" and the other "Ireland". Information differential: zero.
  4. So why do we "like" the present title? It's very simple, in fact. Irish general election, 2011 relates to the 31st Dáil, Irish general election, 2007 to the 30th Dáil, and so on. For historical reasons the numbering of Dálaí goes back to the revolutionary period, so the Irish general election, 1918 relates to the First Dáil. Consistency is the reason, not "nationalist POV" or any such thing.

I hope that explains it. Scolaire (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire claims that "one contains "Irish" and the other "Ireland". Information differential: zero." that is not true. To use the demonym 'Irish' implies a sense of ownership of being an election in this case belonging to the Irish. Ireland on the other hand is neutral describing a geographical area: the island of Ireland. To use Ireland therefore would reflect the multinational nature of the election, i.e. the fact the election was organised run and called for by the British government but that the consequences of the election were almost uniquely reflective in Ireland. As for the arguments against the term ownership the Britiannica part of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica reflects it origins within Britain rather the current owner of the company who own it. Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Two amazing words, to reflect so much! Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This still seems to miss the original point, which is nothing to do with ownership or anything - that the subject of this article is not a general election, it is part of a general election. That's why the present title is misleading. Obviously the right title will likely be inconsistent with the titles of articles on subsequent Irish general elections, because those actually were full general elections.--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. In all the war of words it was difficult to see what the original point was. I would still prefer to see you say "That's why in my opinion the present title is misleading" and "What I consider the right title will likely be inconsistent with the titles of other articles". On WP we call that the "collaborative approach".
From the point of view of the First Dáil (which was made up of 75% of the members elected in Ireland) this was a general election, and specifically an Irish general election, which used the mechanism of the UK general election to withdraw MPs from the Imperial Parliament and set up a revolutionary assembly in Dublin. Obviously, the British government and the unionists viewed it differently. So you see it does come down to the question of "ownership", or worse, "legitimacy". Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I don't believe these should be the determining factors in choosing an article title. It should be based on what best describes the topic, although consistency is also important, as I'm sure an encyclopedia-building geek will agree. I believe, and you can count the number of editors that agree, that the present title best describes the topic of this article. Scolaire (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything in the article or anywhere else that suggests what happened in Ireland was a separate election. This was an election which was called by the UK government and took place all over the UK at the same time. The Irish results of this election were later used as a basis for selecting the members of the first Dáil; that can't retrospectively change what the election was at the time it happened. --Kotniski (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In your opinion. Anyway, you have stated your opinion and I have stated mine. Let's just leave the RM to take its course. Scolaire (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing how this is a matter of opinion - the historical facts are as they are, and Wikipedia has no business to be reinventing them. --Kotniski (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Call the police, then. Press charges. I'm done here. Scolaire (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The General Election was called for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So is it suggested that the article currently titled United Kingdom general election, 1918 be changed to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland general election, 1918? This article deals with the General Election held in Ireland in 1918. A very none scientific google search for article titles for WP:COMMONNAME seems to be refelected in the current titles.
  1. Irish General Election 1918 About 1,420,000 results
  2. United Kingdom general election, 1918 About 1,750,000 results
  3. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland general election, 1918 About 226,000 results
On a book search we get similar results:
  1. Irish General Election 1918 About 27,300 results
  2. United Kingdom general election, 1918 About 12,600 results
  3. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland general election, 1918 About 2,200 results
Not very scientific but hey.--Domer48'fenian' 18:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Would be a bit less unscientific if you'd put quotes round the search terms. And no-one's suggesting using the full name of the United Kingdom (why would we want to do that? - anyway, the current proposal doesn't even include United Kingdom in the title at all), so this seems to be a complete red herring.--Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You have said above that "This was an election which was called by the UK government and took place all over the UK at the same time." Ireland was not within the United Kingdom (UK), rather it was considered part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The General Election of 1918 was held in both the UK and Ireland. This article is about the Irish General Election in 1918.--Domer48'fenian' 16:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't quite understand your meaning. The election was held in both Great Britain (England, Scotland & Wales) and in Ireland, but at the time, both were within the United Kingdom, and the election was held on that basis for the only parliament that then existed. Regardless of your interpretation of the Easter Proclamation, consider what might have happened if other candidates had won those 73 seats (or many of them); they would have sat in Westminster. In fact, the successful Sinn Féin candidates could have sat at Westminster; they just chose (following their announced programme) to do otherwise. But that's what the election itself was about: a choice between candidates for the UK parliament. Sinn Féin's opponents (certainly not the Unionists) weren't running to sit in the first Dáil Éireann; the two dozen other MP's elected in that very same "Irish general election" in fact sat in the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. ¶ At the same time, however, it can't be denied that the election was seen by many then and has been seen by many since as the first election to the first Dáil (whose status has been itself a matter of bitter and even bloody contention). They might see a tehnically-accurate title like UK general election in Ireland, 1918 as incomplete, inadequate or inaccurately conveying the winning party's intention of converting the results into a plebiscite on Irish independence. So the trick is to find a title that somehow neutrally incorporates both senses without misleading anyone or distorting history. 1918 General Election in Ireland seems closest to doing that. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That you can't understand the difference between the actual title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Great Britain or UK is neither here nor there. As I've not mentioned the Easter Proclamation, you comment above suggests another misunderstanding by you. We are not really intrested in the "what might have happened" type on arguement, but rather what did happen. This article title is correct and to the point, and I can see no arguements thus far to see why it should be changed. User:Domer48 (removed the signature formatting since for some weird reason it was making the rest of the page blue) 08:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're talking about. Of course the United Kingdom, the UK, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland all refer to the same thing in this context, but since none of them are part of the proposal, that seems irrelevant. And our interest in "what did happen" is precisely why the present title is wrong, as has been argued at length (it's stretching good faith to imagine that you really can't see these arguments, when they're all over this page). What did happen was that a UK general election was called, and the Irish part of it (not a separate "Irish general election") took on a significance in itself (sufficient to warrant a separate WP article). To title this article "Irish general election..." implies that there was a separate general election called in Ireland, which is apparently not true. It seems a simple enough matter (and entirely non-partisan) to me.--Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Side issue[edit]

I'm not sure where I'd fall on this question, but I think whatever is done or not done, maybe some effort should be made to harmonise it with the separate sequence and templates for Elections in Northern Ireland, including Northern Ireland elections to the UK parliament. Perhaps "1918" should be added to the list of Northern Ireland elections to Westminster, or perhaps other adjustments could be made. Of course the issue is slightly different since most of the members elected from the Six Counties did sit in Westminster (but then I think some of the Unionist MP's elected from the Twenty-six did, too). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm! I haven't seen that one before. At first glance I can't see any Westminster election except the most recent one. It's my bed-time so maybe I'll look again in the morning. Scolaire (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it wasn't because I was tired. That's just a weird article. The first section is Elections to the European Parliament, which does nothing except link to a "constituency" article (which gives the results of all seven elections). The next is Elections to the British House of Commons, which gives tabular results of the most recent general election, but doesn't even mention any previous general election, yet links to (presumably) every bye-election back to 1921. The remainder of the list, dealing with what it calls elections "on a provincial level", is fine. I'm afraid I'm just baffled by the suggestion that we "harmonise it with the separate sequence and templates for "Elections in Northern Ireland". First of all, what is "it"? The article or the article title? How can you harmonise an article with a list? What is the "separate sequence" you are referring to? Does "templates" refer to the templates at the bottom of that article and, if so, what have any of them to do with the topic of this article? As to adding 1918 to the list of NI elections, the only way I can see of doing that is to say that in 1918 the area of Ireland that would become Northern Ireland two or three years later returned x members to the Westminster parliament and y members to Dáil Éireann. I could see people having some difficulty with that. Scolaire (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this shows why the present title of this article is wrong (and not for any political PoV reasons, just because of the way we present facts). Northern Ireland general election, 1969 is about an election to the NI parliament, not the NI part of a general election to the UK parliament. Similarly Scottish general election, 2011 redirects (as anyone would expect it to) not to an article about the Scottish part of a UK general election, but to the elections to the Scottish parliament. It simply isn't the way we use language (at least, not when we're speaking or writing carefully, as an encyclopedia should) to use a phrase like "Irish general election" to mean "the Irish part of the general election". To one with no strong political views on any of these matters, this seems straightforward, and I've no idea why the suggestion to correct it should have aroused such heartfelt opposition.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I also note the comment made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Naming discussion - while I hope that editor is wrong in his views about the intransigence of Irish nationalists, the point about the way other articles of this type are named rather shoots out of the water the claim that by titling this article in the current way we are somehow promoting "consistency".--Kotniski (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Extra-legal'[edit]

Can somebody point me to a reliable source that the describes the First Dáil as an "extra-legal" parliament. I find the word grating, and it seems to me it has no purpose other than suggesting illegality (and therefore illegitimacy) without saying it outright. Shatter Resistance said in his edit summary that "'Seperate' means the actions were definitely legal." How? Separate just means it was separate. Scolaire (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the text and added text which is reflective of the article. I've added a template and suggest that unreferenced text should be referenced or removed.--Domer48'fenian' 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the definiton of Extralegal as found on Wiktionary: 'occurring outside the law; not governed by law'. Within this context the wording of the article is perfectly correct and appropriate. Ireland was governed by British Law (with English law probably being a better description) as part of the United Kingdom. Only the British Parliament may decide who can create legislation and they did not give the First Daill that power, up until this point no institution could even attempt to claim that it was the legal voice of the Irish people except for the British Parliament (and the Northern and Southern Ireland Parliaments which the British Parliament created for them). I understand this is a contensious issue however, the First Daill was not recognised outside of Ireland or even by all the Irish populace. Seperate does indeed mean 'it was seperate' but also gives the impression it had legal authority. Extralegal implies that the First Daill was not within the official law but that it did indeed have a de facto authority. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects". So if not in the article it doesn't go in the lead. Mo ainm~Talk 20:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I don't see how that it revelant to the case of whether the Parliament was seperate or extralegal. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
BRD is just an essay and doesn't carry much weight when faced with arbitration enforced restrictions. Mo ainm~Talk 20:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You have violated the 1RR rule on this article despite the notice placed on the article, and the notice placed on their talk page. They made their third revert despite the notice on their talk page. They need to now self revert or be reported.--Domer48'fenian' 20:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out on my own talk page, I made my reverts before reading the comment you left so I hardly think it is fair to critise me for doing that since I was obeying the 3RR which I thought was in place. Also the first acquisation you made on my talk page of a violation was my first revert which I'm sure even under 1RR I am allowed to do. I reverted under WP:BRD and I would like the D - for discussion - to take place. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
As my post shows, you were made aware of the 1RR prior to your third revert. Now self revert, or you will be reported and subject to sanctions. --Domer48'fenian' 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have explained I didn't read the post until after I made the revert as I was pressing the revert button at the same time as you were posting. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you now going to self revert yes or no?--Domer48'fenian' 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm going to ask for your forgiveness for accidently breaking a rule. But I'm also going to say under WP:BRD I shouldn't have had to break 1RR at all as a discussion should have taken place. If we call it quits and have the discussion now, I'm good with that. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, saying you were "obeying the 3RR which I thought was in place" is more or less an admission that you were gaming the system, which is not recommended either. As to you're justification of the (triple) revert, I made clear that I was not disputing the fact that the Dáil fit the dictionary definition of "extra-legal". What I asked for was a reliable source that used the description "extra-legal". This has not been provided. Also, you have asserted again that the word "separate" used by me "gives the impression it had legal authority", without explaining how it does. BRD means providing a reasonable argument, not reverting three different editors while persisting with the same dodgy argument. You're not in a position to "call it quits".
Since my initial edit was a new edit, I am now going to perform my one revert of the day. Scolaire (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
One I have only made two reverts so I hadn't gamed the system. Two, I don't care how many reverts we are meant to have I am trying to establish a discussion and you are gaming the system if you now revert, in which case it is a clear case of vandalism and I am entitled to revert. Three, I have explained seperate implied distinct unless you provide adequete explanation that the First Daill was not recognised outside of Ireland, a explanation which can be a couple on lines long or could just use the word Extra-legal. Also if you are so keen on evidence, why not provide some that describes the First Daill as 'seperate'? Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we get back on topic now please. Mo ainm~Talk 20:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please. And can we discuss without changes or reverts to the phrase, i.e. keep the article how it was until a new consensus. Shatter Resistance (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Shatter Resistance, you need to urgently read up on Wikipedia policies before you get yourself into trouble. First, three reverts (myself, Domer and Mo ainm) when you think that you can get away with three reverts is gaming the system. Second, BRD means that you, and not just those who disagree with you, are bound to discuss and not edit-war. Third, any revert that makes sense, disputed or not, is not vandalism and does not entitle you to anything. Please take care.
Also, you did not explain how "separate" implies "distinct" (of course it does!), or how "distinct implies "legal". You only said it does. Scolaire (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for giving my case stronger claims. As you say any revert which makes sense is allowed, as the other editors involved in this issue (including myself) finnally managed to reacch a stage where we were happy to talk and have a sensible discusson along you come and make another edit. Please leave the article how it was and talk so that if need be changes can be made without conflict. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have ignored my advice, which was sincerely meant and comes from experience. Now you will be blocked, and you have nobody to blame but yourself. You should have read the policies! Scolaire (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to be threatening. Anyway I am sticking to the point that I have done nothing wrong in reverting your edits and this it is you who has created disruption by persisting in your edits rather than talking. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As I stated above per WP:LEAD content that is not in the article shouldn't go into the lead as the lead is a summary of the article. Mo ainm~Talk 21:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I did actually ask for an explanation of that, which was never provided which considering that you keep on all telling me I don't understand the rules makes you all seem a little obstructive yourself. However under that logic then no alternative should replace it, it should just be removed, or a new entry put into the article. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Mo ainm did provide the explanation, with a link, early on. You replied with "Sorry I don't see how that it revelant to the case of whether the Parliament was seperate or extralegal." Who is being obstructive? Scolaire (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Your clearly not interested in our policies and ignored the comments of both Scolaire and Myself supporting our edits. That you will also ignore Arbcom imposed sanctions leaves little room to support the view that you will even read WP:LEAD. I'll leave it to WP:AE to address your attitude and actions.--Domer48'fenian' 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No I am making a very clear point here. To state that WP:LEAD should be followed is simple enough however the changes being made state that the Parliament was 'seperate' or 'revolutionary', which again are not followed up on in the article specifically. My point is that if WP:LEAD is to be fully enforced then the entire paragraph should just be removed. Shatter Resistance (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You are just being plain disruptive, my edit which you reverted here mentions neither 'seperate' or 'revolutionary' and you still reverted. To state that WP:LEAD should be followed is simple enough however but you revert regardless.--Domer48'fenian' 13:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sauce for the goose[edit]

I notice that American Revolutionary War says "The Americans formed a unifying Continental Congress and a shadow government in each colony." It doesn't say 'extra-legal Continental Congress'. I also see at Continental Congress "The newly-founded country of the United States next had to create a new government to replace the British Parliament that it was in rebellion against". So before we use 'extra legal' in this article, we have 1776 to deal with. Would those in favour of 'extra-legal' please see first how they get on with changing the US article. Don't forget your tin hat. --Red King (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Red King, if only for making me smile. And thank you for your "messy compromise proposal". I have a feeling the mess will be cleaned up soon enough; in the meantime that will do grand. Scolaire (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is however this information dose not appear anywere in the article. Having added the improve template, the last thing we need is more unreferenced text but I do accept the good faith attempt. --Domer48'fenian' 13:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but this really is an appalling compromise, which really should have been proposed here first, of course I dare not revert it for fear of cries of 1RR and WP:BRD is pick and choose.
As for the idea the Parliment was extra legal to the British and revolutionary to the Irish is rubbish. The British didn't choose to see it as extra legal, it just was.
In terms of evidence that extra legal is a termed used, even in Ireland, then I suggest we look no further than by the information provided by the sitting Irish Sentator Terry Leyden here. Shatter Resistance (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't be the first thing to spring to mind if I was looking for reliable sources. TBH it looks as though it might have come from Wikipedia. Senators are not above that, you know. Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
And indeed, see Seanad Éireann#Historical origins. --Scolaire (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
LMAO, ;).--Domer48'fenian' 18:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
And I suppose you have evidence that Senators regularly copy text from Wikipedia? It seems to me that as a former member of the Dail and a current long standing member of the Seanad he might well no a thing or two about constitutional law. Interesting that you provide a link to another page on Wikipedia which uses the line extra-legal? Sees to me to be evidence it is a widespread term used by varied editors. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
No, SR, it's a link to a WP page with the identical text. Not only that, but text you might have read when you were editing Oireachtas of the Irish Free State. --Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not identical text at all, the only repeated word is 'extra-legal' in the two extracts. Though you are correct that I did read (and in some case when sources were provided even lift small sections) of text when editing Oireachtas of the Irish Free State. 18:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatter Resistance (talkcontribs)
SR, I have compared, word by word, the text in the link you provided with the text in the Seanad Éireann (not Seanad of the Irish Free State, see my link) article. With a couple of exceptions ("20th" for "twentieth", "senate" for "seanad") they are identical. To use a phrase of yours, to deny it would be a falsehood. Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
No look here, this is what it says (or said) on this article: "The aftermath of the elections saw the convention of an extra-legal parliament, now known as the First Dáil, by the elected Sinn Féin candidates, and the outbreak of the Irish War of Independence." and this is what it says in the link to the section you are reffering to: "In 1919 Irish nationalists established an extra-legal legislature called Dáil Éireann but this body was unicameral and so had no upper house." Completly different sentences! Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
God give me patience! The Terry Leyden page that you linked to is taken verbatim from the Seanad Éireann page on Wikipedia. You are attempting to use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

resistriction template[edit]

The restrictions template clearly states:

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Please stop being disruptive.--Domer48'fenian' 19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well okay, that is the criteria, thats nice, but why wasn't it there until you decided I was breaching 1RR? And more to the point I'm not convinced it does fall under that criteria (or more precisely, what is meant by the criteria, in a literal sense obviously it applies) as this is not an article which is focussing on Irish/British nationalism but rather who people voted for, whilst some of the parties involved were nationalist parties it doesn't automatically follow the article is protected under these guidelines. Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
SR, please! You're out of your depth. If you want to know what the criterion is, you need to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Specifically, it says, "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." Please try to understand: nobody's trying to hound you, but if you keep pretending you understand things when you don't, you are going to end up blocked for a long time. This is not a threat, it's a plea. You cannot win if you don't even know the name of the game! Scolaire (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I placed the notice at 19.58 and informed you on your talk page at 20.02 to inform you of the sanctions and your violation of WP:1RR. You made your third revert at 20.03 and your fourth revert at 20.49. You are all out of excuses. You were made aware of it, you were repeatedly ask to self revert by a number of editors and you decided to ignore everyone. That is why you were reported! --Domer48'fenian' 19:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)